Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Malevolence and Meditation

The word meditation has many connotations, and if you study on it, you will see that it has a variety of meanings. Some folks might think of formal meditation practices used in Eastern religions, but others may be pondering something and call that "meditating". Meditation is popular nowadays, but what do people really mean by it?

There are many forms of meditation in use today, but they can lead to unpleasant experiences and occult influence. Christians are told to meditate, but we must do it the right way.
Credit: Unsplash / Yogi Madhav
If you spend a great deal of time thinking and focusing on something (or someone), you're meditating on it. Take a gander at what people are doing and see if you agree with me. They meditate on church activities, politics, global climate change hysteria, sports, a favorite musician, sex, and so on. (I remember hearing a caller to a political talk radio show and the host exclaimed, "Your religion is liberalism!" The caller replied, "Yes!") This can also have a negative thrust. I can name a few atheists and anti-creationists who essentially meditate on their hatred for God's Word. See Psalm 38:12, for example.

We have to be careful when using Christian meditation. There are people who will tell you to avoid it because New Agers, Eastern yogis and other occultists use meditation techniques. That can be guilt by association; occultists breathe air, too, shall we avoid that because they do it? (I'll allow that my example is hyperbolic, but I hope it gets the idea across.) However, caution is advised.

I used to oppose the concept that people can get into certain states of consciousness and open themselves up to occult influences. Even materialists are seeing negative effects resulting from meditation. Notice also that such practices are often used by people who are indulging in other occult and paranormal practices.

You may be surprised to learn that Christians are told to meditate. The main point is to focus on the Word of God (Psalm 1:2, Psalm 77:12, 1 Timothy 4:15 KJV), not on ourselves or other things.
What is meditation? It can be very different things. It can be an attempt to empty the mind. Or, by contrast, it can be the purposeful attempt to focus the mind with certain kinds of thoughts, to the exclusion of other thoughts. The word meditation by itself needs modifiers to be meaningful. The intuitive picture people have of meditators is that they are sitting in some kind of lotus position, with eyes closed, doing something. But what? And what are the consequences of whatever they are doing in their inner selves?

At New Scientist, Donna Lu reports that “A quarter of people who meditate experience negative mental states.” That’s a surprisingly high percentage for an activity widely advertised to be beneficial.
 To read the entire article, click on "Some Meditation Practices Can Be Scary".

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

The Problem of Evil and the Biblical Worldview

One of the biggest problems for unbelievers and Christians alike is what is often called the problem of evil. People have different concepts of what they consider evil, but those are essentially based on trends in cultures or even personal preferences.

People say that something is evil, but they need a consistent standard. This is a way to deal with it and to realize that we are finite; we cannot understand everything. We live by faith.
Credit: Freeimages / createsima
The candies I'm chawing right now are evil because I'm not supposed to have them, but it's my fault for eating the things. The bird that flew away with Captain America's hot dog was evil. There are some Christians who consider rock music to be evil because, well, because. Others consider country music evil. Those examples are personal preferences (and a bit of sarcasm), not there is no actual evil involved.

Natural disasters are evil because of the destruction of property and loss of life, but that is really nature doing what nature does. Terrorists are evil, but from their perspective, they are seeking some kind of greater good. Brian Sims acts like pro-life activists are evil, but pro-life people consider him evil for advocating the murders of unborn children. One tinhorn considers biblical creationists liars and evil because we present evidence refuting his deep time and idolatrous position.

There has to be an ultimate standard for good and evil. This cannot be found in an evolutionary or atheistic worldview, since they think we are simply responding to our chemical impulses; when they complain that something is evil, they are standing on the biblical creationist worldview! I challenged the tinhorn mentioned earlier that, if I was indeed lying, why would that be wrong according to his worldview? He was defeated because he could not give a cogent answer, and displayed his subjective opinion instead.

There are people who reject God because of evil in the world. After all, why doesn't he do something about it? God is the Creator and he is sovereign. We are not entitled to understand everything he does, but what kind of God would he be if his finite creation could fully understand him? Christians are to respond in faith that he has purposes and that ultimately, everything glorifies him. No, that is not an ego thing where he wants us to applaud his every move. The glory of God is far deeper than that.
Perhaps the most frequent argument used by skeptics against the Christian faith is that a good, loving, and all-powerful God wouldn't possibly allow evil (along with sorrow, pain, bloodshed, etc.) into his world. Evil obviously exists in our world. It is all around us. Thus, the biblical God can’t possibly exist. If he did, and he was indeed omnipotent, he would obviously do something about it! It is not only skeptics, however, who struggle with this “problem of evil.” The Christian who shares his faith will find that this question probably causes more people to doubt the validity of the Bible and the Christian faith than any other. This author, based only on his own anecdotal experiences, would argue that it is a greater stumbling block to people than is even the creation-evolution debate. Therefore, the Christian must be prepared to explain the existence of evil. Fortunately, within the Christian worldview it is possible to do just that. Outside the Christian worldview, it is not. There are no adequate explanations for evil in other worldviews.
To finish reading, click on "Creation and the Problem of Evil".


Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Make a Bible Casserole with Current Trends

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Christians who believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible have been scorned for centuries. Many of us have been persecuted in varying forms, even to the point of death. People do not want to be reminded that there is a Creator who is also their Judge, and they are accountable to him. We could make it easier by giving in on certain areas.

When we mix the Bible with cultural and secular science trends, we are elevating those above God's Word. Some folks think we should just give up and get with the times.
Credit: RGBStock / John Byer
Get with the times, don't be on the wrong side of history! Society changes, so should religious people, right? Not hardly! Cultures can change quickly. What was scandalous a few years ago is acceptable today. And back again. It was acceptable to be ant-Semitic in Germany, but that fell out of fashion, except that it is becoming acceptable for American leftists and Louis Farrakhan. Should we join in or is there an ultimate standard?

Women can be pastors despite what Scripture says. Atheist women can be pastors despite the Bible (and rational thought). Marriage can be redefined to include marriage to yourself, your pet, someone of the same sex, or whatever despite what God established — and societies accepted for millennia. Science is being hijacked to support leftist causes such as transgenderism and denying scientific facts of differences between men and women. Should we saddle up and ride with everyone else?

Science has shown that Earth is billions of years old, universal common ancestor evolution is a fact, everything began with the Big Bang, and so on. We don't need the clear teachings of the Bible, and we can pick whatever "science" confirms our biases. All that scientific evidence for the young earth and refuting evolution can be discarded so we can just get along with everyone. Should we join in?


While we're compromising, we may as well keep going. "Science has shown" that the virgin birth could not have happened. Miracles cannot happen at all because atheism. Obviously, Jesus could not have been raised from the dead. After all, Jesus as just a man of his time. Same for Paul, Peter, and the other New Testament writers, so all of them were limited in knowledge and made mistakes. Scriptura sub scientia using naturalistic (atheist) interpretations of ever-changing man-made science philosophies. God can take a nap in the next room, we'll call him if we decide he is necessary.

Group hug, everybody!

When people reject the Bible's authority, they make it into a casserole:
  • obtain sciencey foundation as your large dish, making sure to select leftist trends and evolution to help undermine notions of biblical inerrancy
  • insert things that you want to believe
  • add a generous dose of cultural trends
  • select views from various religions for flavor
  • bake in the fires of Hell until golden brown
  • top with opinions of the moment
  • serve 
Variations on this recipe have been used for many years, but the acceleration toward evolutionary thinking and secularism have added more buffalo chips than it had in the past.

Without our biblical foundations, we have no basis for science and logic (which may be a reason so many secularists and leftists are unskilled in critical thinking). More than that, our faith is worthless — not only are we wasting our time, but we are without hope facing eternity.

Who do you want to please? I don't pay no nevermind to those who think I am a fool for Jesus and for the Word of God. Any Christian who believes the Bible should focus on the author and finisher of our faith, not the opinions of men and women. Those who reject the authority and inerrancy of the Word need to repent.

This article was inspired by one from Dr. R. Albert Mohler. I recommend for your edification "Should Christians Just Admit That The Bible 'Got It Wrong' And Move On?"


Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Thought Experiment: Rebuilding Science

The thought experiment concept has been around for a very long time, even before mathematics became a formal discipline. Scientists use it for a "what if" approach to imagine the results of an event or procedure. Here, we start with an apocalyptic event.


Read a thought experiment where the world is devastated and we have to rebuild. However, we also need to rebuild science. We can do it - because we still have the Bible.
Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth
In a sudden global catastrophe, our nice planet gets wrecked. (In my version, atheists tried to destroy all creation science materials through special bombs, but they backfired and destroyed all science and many other things.) Yep, something terrible happened. We have to commence rebuilding, but we don't have science to work with.

So we have to rebuild science as well.

The Shivas were not able to destroy our Bibles, much to their chagrin. But the Bible contains what we need to make a new beginning. We can learn theology, logic, that the nature of the universe is predictable, and more. Atheists and other anti-creationists can help, but we cannot use their views for our foundations because science is impossible without God.

What follows is a set of three articles presenting the thought experiment and working through it.
Imagine that humanity has emerged from the rubble of a nuclear holocaust. All the science textbooks are gone. Years have passed and many things have been forgotten. In many cases, we don’t know what’s true and what isn’t. Is the earth round or flat? Does the earth go around the sun, or is it the other way around? We don’t have access to any of the sources we would normally turn to with questions like this, and if we want to find out, we have to build the tools to do so from scratch. But as you stagger forward from the ruins of civilization, you’re not completely bereft of everything, because you’re still holding a Bible, and your thinking is shaped on a fundamental level by the culture that arose from it.
To read the rest, click on "Dystopian science Part 1: Why the Bible enables science to work". Don't forget to come back for next two parts.
We know that the Bible can give rise to science in our dystopian scenario, because it has already given rise to science in the real world. From history, we know the founders of most of the branches of modern science were Christians. They were doing science because they believed they were, in the words of the great astronomer Johannes Kepler, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” They were using these very assumptions, and these assumptions are what underpins the entire field we call “science”. We can now go out and perform experiments, and then extrapolate those results logically (since logic is based in the Person and Word of God) to come up with conclusions about how the world works. So it is not illogical to suggest that in a dystopian scenario, the Bible would again give rise to science, as long as there were still people around who wanted to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

. . .

Science advances as older, sometimes flawed ideas are challenged and replaced with better ideas. And the Bible allows for this, because, while it is not a science textbook, it gives us a framework and a mandate for science. It also gives us a way of thinking that should enable us to more and more closely approach the truth, or at least to disprove false ideas.
You can read all of this installment by clicking on "Dystopian science Part 2: Conspiracy theories require a magical world". We have one more after you get back.
God is a God of order (c.f. 1 Corinthians 14:33), and we can easily see this in Scripture. For example, He made the sun, moon, and stars “for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14)—that assumes knowledge of astronomy, physics, mathematics, a concept of linear time, a calendar system, rationality, and the ability to make empirical observations—all in one verse! Thoughts like this help us to understand that there is a normative order in nature and provides the basis for a pragmatic, practical use of science.

Our thought experiment has turned out unexpectedly optimistic! God has given us all the foundation we need in Scripture to do science and to test the claims of others who claim to be authorities. So where do we start?
To read the final article in its entirety, click on "Dystopian science Part 3: Rebuilding science from the ground up".

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Triassic Tumors or a Very Good Creation

Biblical creationists have some challenges to meet in order to remain faithful to Scripture. One of those is with fundamentally flawed dating methods used by secularists as well as religious compromisers. In this case, a Triassic tumor dated to be 240 million years old.


Secularists and religious compromisers on long ages challenge biblical creationists with faulty evidence. Here, a fossil with bone cancer dated at 240 million years is used.
Pappochelys rosinae reconstruction image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Rainer Schoch
We maintain that the Bible says what it means, and to change the plain reading to accommodate long-age owlhoots is unfaithful to the text (Prov. 30:6, 1 Cor. 4:6, Isaiah 40:8). But what of radiometric dating that puts critters back millions of years, and some of them had cancer? Despite the claims of secularists, radiometric dating has serious flaws. This includes wildly disparate results — including for rocks of known ages. Fact is, the Genesis Flood is a more rational description for what is found in geology.

Compare faulty claims of deep time to Scripture, where God said his creation was very good (Gen. 1:31). It beggars reason to believe that God used the waste, inefficiency, cruelty, and chaos of evolution as his method of creation. He allowed cancer to be in his very good world? No. Death and disease were not there at the beginning, and will not be there at the restoration of all things, old son.
German researchers described rare bone cancer in a Triassic reptile fossil found in limestone near Velberg, Germany. The find reignites conversations about the origin of diseases and ultimately of life.

The team published micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans of the creature’s femur in the journal JAMA Oncology. It showed the insides of the enlarged region and confirmed the haphazard bone growth characteristic of a periosteal osteosarcoma—a rare bone cancer. According to the PhysOrg news that announced the discovery, this disease affects about 850 U.S. citizens each year, but occurs at an even lower rate in fossils.
To read the rest about this fascinating research and its meaning to biblical creationists, click on "Triassic Tumor Raises Creation Questions".

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Appearances of the Creator in the Old Testament

On Resurrection Sunday, most Christians celebrate the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead. While the man Jesus began his earthly life in Bethlehem, God the Son has always existed. He made himself known in several places in the Old Testament. These are called theophanies.


While we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we can also remember that he is our Creator. He also appeared in the Old Testament.
Abraham Receiving the Three Angels by Bartolome Esteban Murillo, 1667
There is disagreement among scholars about the nature of theophanies. In the broadest sense, they were encounters with God. There is some debate about the identity of the angel of the Lord (although the text indicates that this was the preincarnate Christ). God was active in human history before he (our Creator) took the form of a man, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, was buried, and rose again the third day. This is one of many reasons to humble ourselves and rejoice.
As Easter approaches, we tend to focus our reflections on the life, death, and glorious resurrection of Christ. We even mark the timeline of history by whether events happened before (BC) or after (AD) Christ’s birth. But Christ’s existence didn’t begin with His time on Earth.

. . .

The Lord Jesus Christ was present at the beginning of creation—He was and is our Creator. His pre-existence is further affirmed by His many appearances documented throughout the Old Testament. Theophany is a theological term that refers to an encounter with God prior to Christ’s incarnation. There are over 50 possible theophanies recorded throughout the Old Testament, primarily concentrated in Genesis, in the Exodus and conquest events, in Judges, and in the prophets.
To read the entire article, click on "Theophanies in the Old Testament: The Creator at Work in His World".


Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Christians, Censorship, and Book Burning

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Christians were warned from the get-go that we would have persecution (1 John 3:13, Mark 4:17, 2 Tim. 3:12, 1 Peter 4:19). They were tortured in various ways, including being thrown to the lions (some atheopaths seem to want that practice reinstated, I have seen this image posted more than once). Today, atheist-run countries actively persecute Bible-believing Christians (such as China), and Mohammedans are rampant; they wiped out entire villages in Nigeria. This is only one example. However, many persecutions of Christians and biblical creationists in Western countries are subtle and insidious.


Anti-Christian and anti-creationist falsehoods that we oppose science are increasing. People who do not have the grit to learn the truth are easily deceived.
Credit: Unsplash / Fred Kearney

Poisoning the Well

Atheists and anti-creationists try to silence Christians and biblical creationists by demonizing us. After all, if you poison the well against individuals and organizations enough, who will want to listen to what we have to say — I mean, aside from bigots who seek confirmation for their biases? You will hear cries that we are "anti-science", which is based on conflating evolution and old Earth philosophies with the word science. This Machiavellian logic implies that if we reject their materialistic philosophies, we reject science itself. An intellectually honest person who peruses sites, books, videos, and so forth of biblical creationists can see for themselves that we use real science.


Suppressing the Truth

I am convinced that in their efforts to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-23), anti-Christians seek to justify their rebellion against our Creator. One tinhorn calls God a liar. He also claims since the Ice Age is not in the Bible, the creationist view is "fictitious" (an idea that's plumb loco, but I don't have time to explain the logical fallacies involved). He also says the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. Further, he demanded an explanation of why dinosaur fossils have not been found at the Grand Canyon, was given a link explaining that neither secularists nor creationists expect this, ignored it, and kept on making the same demand. His approach seems to be a kind of Gnostic effort to deny the Bible while elevating personal philosophies above God's Word while simultaneously making a pretense of religiosity. All this while suppressing the truth.

Old Earth proponents also deny the Genesis Flood. After all, if Jesus was wrong about the mustard seed, he was not really the omniscient Creator in the flesh. May as well ignore what he said about the Flood, God's design for marriage, and whatever else strikes a compromiser's fancy. After all, if the Bible has errors, then you treat Scripture like a buffet and pick out what you like. See how that works?

In addition, propagandists spread the falsehood that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, and that the church fathers also held to this error. In reality, the flat Earth idea was spread by anti-Christians. The tinhorn mentioned previously cries that the Bible teaches the earth is flat based on his mishandling of Matt. 4:8. (His error is clearly explained here, but he is too  pusillanimous to accept correction.*) For a passel of links refuting the flat earth both scientifically and theologically, see "The Bible and the Flat Earth".

Over in the formerly Great Britain, the rights of people to actively practice their faith is coming under pressure. (Of course, it is Christians and Jews that are targeted, not Mohammedans or atheists.) While saying that it is acceptable for parents to teach their children about faith, secularists contradict themselves by claiming that children are not receiving real knowledge. I reckon that secularists do not like having their monopoly on indoctrination in atheism challenged. See "The real extremism" for more about these efforts at censorship and persecution.

People like this are intolerant despite their protestations that they favor free speech. Those with opposing view are attacked for expressing their views. Actually, we are hated for even having differing views. Especially because we uphold the Bible. Those people need to repent, and do it quickly.


Who are the Active Censors?

Sidewinders in the secular science industry are building on the "Christians are anti-science" pedagese. They maintain that we favor censorship and maligning the apostle Paul. in a straw man argument. One in particular is asserting that Paul was in favor of book burning, and that he was therefore anti-science. Folks who don't have the grit to use their think bones or even read the passage in question will accept this prevarication. Paul didn't order it, and may not have even known that the voluntary burning of occult books by people who renounced evil had happened.

Religious schools are challenged to cave in to secular ideals. Religious liberty is under assault. For more on this, listen to or read the transcript of The Briefing for March 26, 2019.

An amazing instance of blatant censorship occurred in a 1986 debate at Oxford University. Clinton Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith debated A.E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews. Dawkins told the audience not to vote for the creationists. He thought a vote for creationists would be a disgrace to Oxford (bigotry and the fallacy of special pleading). Someone tampered with the numbers, and the usual amount of press that such events received did not happen. Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote in his memoirs:
In December 1986, I received an inquiry from the Radcliffe Science Library, Oxford, asking if I had ever really held a Huxley Memorial Lecture on February 14, 1986. No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it. So total is the current censorship on any effective criticism of Neo-Darwinian science and on any genuine alternative.
You can read the report with the above quote at "Fraudulent report at AAAS and the 1986 Oxford University debate". See the very last link on the page regarding the theft of intellectual property.

Those who seek to keep us silenced, who keep creationist research out of the mainstream science publications, those who demonize people they hate, cannot use or understand logic ("You're a liar! Prove me wrong!"), blatantly misrepresent Christians and creationists while playing the victim card — those jaspers are the real censors. Amazingly, secularists pretend that they are the victims and we are the oppressors.



Believing Falsehoods about the Apostle Paul

One reason such vile persecution succeeds is because people shun critical thinking. I also firmly believe that people are getting intellectually lazier nowadays. The subtle persecution continues.
Paul warned that Christ followers would be slandered. A book review in Nature shows it is still going on.
. . . Robert P. Crease reviewed his own book – a practice that is quite unusual. At least we know what the author thinks of his own words. That Nature printed it without any criticism tells us that the journal editors pretty much agree with him. Their headline reads, “The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back; Robert P. Crease harks back to the shapers of our scientific infrastructure and what they can tell us about how to handle the threat we now face.” Watch for the bogeyman!
So what does Robert say about his own book under Nature's imprimatur?
To read the entire article, click on "Was the Apostle Paul a Book Burner?"

Lyrics available at the YouTube link

* As in the demand for an answer that he likes for dinosaurs in the Grand Canyon, he repeated this demand while dodging the topic under discussion. Apparently he is expecting others to be mind readers: for AiG to read his mail when he is blocked by them (and blocked by many other people). This makes me think of how leftists demanded the Mueller report about Donald Trump, did not get what they wanted, and are making fools of themselves by demanding more.

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Jesus and the Mustard Seed

Among the many parables that Jesus told, one was about the mustard seed. He said that it was the "smallest" seed in Matthew 13:32, which atheists and anti-creationists attack by saying that there are other seeds which are smaller, which means to them that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.


Jesus said that the mustard seed was the "smallest". Atheists and other anti-creationists jump on this, but an examination of context and other factors gives us the truth.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / jk1991
We expect atheists to find excuses to claim that Jesus is not God, but it is disheartening when owlhoots who claim to be Christian will also claim that he was mistaken in an effort to justify theistic evolution. No, he is the Creator, and knows what he is doing (Col. 1:16, John 1-1-3). As is the case in many instances of confusion and alleged Bible contradictions, context is vitally important. Here, we can look at not only the immediate context, but the greater context.

Jesus was not giving a botany lesson, pilgrim. The parable was an illustration about the kingdom of Heaven. He would have used figures of speech. In fact, I referred to someone as "the tiniest thing", but there are many things tinier. It is interesting that the New International version translates the phrase as, "the smallest of all your seeds" which would apply to the context of his audience. The phrase has also been translated as "the least of all the seeds".

While I have discussed the context, purpose, and figure of speech aspects, the article featured below adds some science aspects for our consideration.
In the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus calls it the smallest seed. But was it really? Both evolutionists and old-earth creationists latch onto this parable, evolutionists to discredit the Bible entirely, and old-earth creationists to prove that the Bible does not have to be taken literally. Both approaches attempt to undermine the authority of God’s Word and challenge the foundation upon which the Christian faith is based.
To read the rest, click on "Are Mustard Seeds the Smallest or Was Jesus Wrong?"


Wednesday, March 27, 2019

The Big Bang and the Bible

There are Christians who believe the Bible, but they are not too keen on digging deeper. This is very unfortunate because it contains words of life and doctrine so we can avoid being led astray. Certain areas of discussion do not interest everyone, which is to be expected. However, questions of origins and the age of the universe are far more important than they think.


There are Christians who think that the Big Bang supports the Bible. Upon closer examination, we see that it is contrary to Scripture and also dreadful science.
Background image from Freeimages / Flavio Takemoto with a cross from Clker clipart
We have examined how theistic evolution is in opposition to biblical creation and sound doctrine, but some folks are willing to accept what "science says" about the age of the earth and the origin of the universe. I saw one post from a Christian who said that "science caught up with the Bible" with cosmic evolution from the Big Bang. That'll be the day! For one thing, the Big Bang is constantly changing when rescuing devices are added when its flaws are found. 


Further, the Bible has always been right, even when it discusses science, and it is unchanging. There are major problems with the Big Bang, both scientifically and theologically. It is not a good idea to use atheistic interpretations of bad science to supplement God's Word, Pilgrim.
Many Christians and others today see the big bang theory as a means of harmonizing what the Bible says about the origin of the universe with the current ‘pronouncements of science’. So we shall examine what the big bang theory involves, and compare this with what God actually says.
To read the entire article, click on "Can Christians add the big bang to the Bible?"



Wednesday, March 20, 2019

No Gospel in the Stars

There are people who believe that the constellations contain the gospel message, and it was there before the Bible was completed. Then, it became unnecessary. This is according to a woman named Frances Rolleston, whose work was published in 1865 and influenced many people. Unfortunately, he work was full of serious errors.

There are people who believe the story that the gospel message is in the constellations. It is based on bad biblical handling and even worse scholarship, and should be avoided.
Map of the Northern Sky with representations of the constellations / Albrecht Durer, 1515
Her books was published posthumously as a collection of notes. (I wonder if some of those were notes to herself to conduct further research, but when I do that I usually have a "look up" or "check on" phrase.) The concept of the gospel in the stars relies on spurious research and taking verses out of context. Like atheists and evolutionists, Rolleston seemed to use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™. She also took verses out of context to make this presentation.

Sincere people and even good pastors have believed this false story. While it is not directly harmful, it does show how people can believe something because they want to, and because things appear to have been researched before they were presented. Christians and creationists need to exercise caution, especially when someone comes along with a "new" concept or revelation. (This is aside from the falsehoods of the old earth creationists who claim that biblical young earth creation is a new concept. In reality, an old earth is the new kid in town.) Several cults and other false teachings have begun with "something new" (see "Lost World of John Walton" for a similar caution).

If someone was to have taken a different approach and say that they are going to use the constellations to present the gospel message but disregard the mythology associated them, fine. It would take a great deal of work. But the best way is to use what God has given to us in his Word. 
The gospel in the stars is a popular topic with many recent creationists. In an earlier paper, I examined some problems with this thesis. Since that earlier publication, the primary source on the subject has become available, allowing this much more detailed examination. In this current study, I identify many problems with the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions made with the gospel in the stars thesis. The etymologies of terms and names are questionable at best and most likely are simply wrong. The biblical arguments are poor, and some conclusions are contrary to biblical principles. While well intended, the gospel in the stars is fraught with problems, and Christians are discouraged from using it.
The entire article is quite long. The link has a PDF download option, and for ebook readers, I suggest using Push to Kindle which gives you the option to do exactly that, or to download in MOBI or EPUB formats. To continue, click on "A Further Examination of the Gospel in the Stars".

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Recent Creation and the Gospel Message

It is a sad fact that many professing Christians do not have a solid understanding of what the Bible teaches. This tempts them to abandon good teaching so they can ride the Owlhoot Trail of false doctrines. Related to this is the opinion that origins and recent creation are irrelevant. While they are not essentials for salvation, recent creation and origins are extremely important to the gospel message.


Many people, including professing Christians, say that questions of origins and recent creation are irrelevant. They are actually very important.
Image source: RGBStock/rizeli53
Atheists, old earth proponents, theistic evolutionists, compromisers, and other enemies of the Word of God exploit this ignorance. They come along with sciencey pronouncements and Scripture twisting, plus a heapin' helpin' of hostility and ridicule toward those of us who believe that God means what he says (including name-calling and labels such as "YECism"). People are timorous when it comes to standing for biblical truth, and when you mix in ignorance with intimidation, folks put the blinders on and join the crowd.

Incidentally, many of us shun the "YEC" (Young Earth Creationist) designation, because it implies that we are doing the same as enemies of the truth. Namely, forcing the Bible to say what they want it to say through eisegesis. No, we prefer the term biblical creationist because we believe the Bible teaches a young creation. Old earthers put current atheistic interpretations of science in the superior role over God's Word. We use biblical exegesis, and we use science correctly, without atheistic presuppositions. See the difference?

People have a lack of understanding of the implications of long ages, a local flood in Genesis, evolution, and other things. They do not realize that they are actually doing damage to the gospel, and even impugning Jesus himself.
Those of us who still believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that God intended it to be understood by ordinary people—not just by scholarly specialists in science or theology—have been labeled “young-earth creationists.”
We didn’t choose that name for ourselves, but it’s true that since we believe God is capable of saying what He means and means what He says, we believe that the whole creation is far younger than evolutionists accept.
To finish reading, click on "The Importance of Recent Creation".



Thursday, March 7, 2019

When Professing Christians Attack Other Christians

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 3-09-2019

As Christians, we have to stand up for the faith against Satan's schemes and false arguments against God's Word (Jude 1:3). We have a great deal to do in accurately presenting the truth to unbelievers, pulling down fortresses raised up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:3-5), refuting old earth and evolutionary falsehoods, and more. We don't need to be commencing cat fights with each other.


Christians must show proper attitudes toward other Christians, and be able to accept biblical rebukes and instruction. Put pride and carnality aside.
Credit: Pixabay/maturika
This has gone back practically to the beginning, where believers seemed to want to be better than others (1 Cor. 1:12-23, Luke 9:46). The Bible has a passel of things to say about pride, old son. I think that pride is one reason folks are swapping lead in the internet style, shooting at people who do not do things or believe the way other people think they should. Don't be disunderstanding me. When people are publicly teaching false doctrine, they need to be called out. What bothers me is when these hissy fits are over minor points where pride is at the root of it all. I've seen witch hunts against teachers, and it is quite distressing to say the least.



On a personal level, believers are instructed to not only put aside pride and other works of the fleshly nature that unbelievers practice (Gal. 5:19-21), but we are to walk in the Spirit (Eph. 5:18, Gal. 5:22-23). We are also to instruct and rebuke other believers (2 Tim. 4:2, Titus 1:9), taking care to do it in love and using care with older believers (1 Tim. 5:1-2). Paul rebuked Peter (Gal. 2:11-14), so nobody is too established in the faith to receive instruction.

However, not only must we give rebukes and instruction, we must also receive them. I reckon that when such things are not done with the love of Christ and the truth of the Word, the one doing the rebuking may not be walking in the Spirit.

I had occasion to challenge someone on Fazebook who is burning with hate toward atheists. He or she set up a Page to strike back, but there is no sign of love of the lost or urging them to repent. Just revenge. This bothered me, so I posted a comment to rebuke them:
Just...no. Sorry, but I'm having trouble keeping the players straight in this game. YES, we can respond to mindless attacks of atheopaths. YES, we can use them as bad examples. But NO, we cannot act just like they are (this only applies to Christians, however). Christians have to be above their level, and glorify God with not only our apologetics and proper use of reason, but our attitudes.
It is tormenting to these insignificant cheerleaders of atheopathy when they are ignored. Their father down below pulls their strings and they dance, and the dance step is often to waste our time. If this Page is run by a Christian, I urge you to repent and get into your Bible.
After several days, I received a reply:
Do me a favor and focus more on attacking militant atheists instead of engaging in self righteous rants against fundamentalist Christians like myself.
Whiny, pompous, and overly judgemental "Christians" like yourself have splintered Christianity into numerous factions that weaken it and give strength to the enemy. 
Remember who the actual enemy is and who the greatest deceiver of all truly is.
In these times we need warriors for Christ and not mealy-mouthed pushovers.
Notice the pride and judgmental attitude. It smells of self-importance, and is loaded with fallacies that I will not take the time to examine. But what's this about "warriors"? Since they did not use any Scripture, I doubt that this was in reference to 2 Cor. 10:4-5 or Eph. 6:10-20. I wrote another response along the lines of, "Yeah, who needs Jesus", then deleted it a few minutes later. The next response was extremely carnal:
Go run your own page. Your poor interpretation of scripture isn't wanted here. I'll worry about my own salvation you pompous pr**k (followed by a laughing with tears in the eyes emoji).
I didn't see any sign of humility or respect for someone who has been in the faith for many years. Also, the personal attack with profanity makes me wonder some things. First, is this person actually a Christian? Second, do they pray for their enemies, or are they just content to slap them down and keep the cycle going? Third (and worse), is this an atheist pretending to be a Christian? They do that, you know. A few other Christians joined in. EDIT: That Page seems to have been removed. I posted my screenshot here.

It can be difficult in the heat of the moment to accept chastening or caution from another believer, I'll allow. Even so, a Spirit-led believer should be willing to consider the words of a Christian trying to pull on the reigns and slow the gallop. Outsiders are watching our conduct, often laughing about it.

Unbelievers should know that we are Christians by our love (John 13:35, Rom. 12:10, Phil. 1:9, Heb. 13:1, 1 Peter 1:22, 1 John 3:10). This includes humbling ourselves by receiving and prayerfully considering instruction and rebuke (Prov. 27:6), especially in our apologetics methods and attitudes. We don't need to be giving enemies of God's Word reason to rejoice, you savvy?

EDIT: I forgot to add something. Some people seem to think that love is a manifestation of sappy emotions, which has nothing to do with biblical teachings. Here is a post with links to some sermons by Dr. John MacArthur on the subject. Also, it should not have to be said, but people progress in different rates in their sanctification. That means we're not as skilled in some areas as we are in others. This adds to the importance of being willing to listen to others who are more mature in the faith, as well as getting into the Word.



Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Making Hybrid Creation Stories

Addendum added later the same day as published.

As any rancher worth his salt knows, you can have a hybrid animal such as a mule (offspring of a horse and donkey). It will likely suit your purpose, but critters like this are not likely to spread life. The same can be said for hybridized accounts of creation that mix the Bible and millions of years.


Although the Bible plainly affirms a literal recent creation, some people want to make up hybrid accounts incorporating naturalism into their beliefs. They are degrading Scripture.
Credit: Library of Congress/Carol M. Highsmith archive
Some folks reject the Bible's authority. We expect that from atheists and other non-believers, but there are professing Christians who also downplay the Word of God. Scripture plainly says that everything was created in six days. Instead of humbling themselves and submitting to Christ, they light a shuck out of there and head for the comfort of riding the owlhoot trail. They are degrading Scripture.

Why would a supposed believer want to compromise? It seems to me that these owlhoots don't want to look like one of those people who reject deep time, so they seek the praise of men rather than God. Another reason is that they want to accommodate atheistic views of science and their interpretations of evidence so they can allow for evolution. Some of these alleged Christians get a notion to add millions of years to the Bible by pretending it doesn't mean what it clearly says. Using the right chronogenealogies and using verses in the proper context, plus some decent research, is mighty helpful.

However, the age of the earth and of the universe itself is not clearly delineated in secular science, nor is evolution. Some of Darwin's disciples fight light badgers in a burlap sack about all sorts of things, and despite the protestations of devolution atheists, evolution is not settled science.


The greater irony here is this "Spock" jasper is eminently illogical
People who try to compromise with theistic evolution, old earth creation, and hybrid creation accounts do not accomplish anything of value. Indeed, such tinhorns mock God, his people, and Scripture. Do they really believe? Their insistence on eisegesis over exegesis, ridicule of Bible-believing Christians, and giving comfort to enemies of God causes me to lack belief that they do so.
There are several different approaches to interpreting Genesis 1 and 2. Theistic evolutionists not only try and read billions of years into the text, they also allow for something that is indistinguishable from straight-up evolution and big bang ideas.

Progressive creationists believe that the universe is very old, that God is the creator, and that He created things in groups, occasionally, across vast periods of time. In general, they reject chemical evolution and Darwinian evolution, but totally accept cosmological and geological evolution.

Day-age theorists can be considered a subset of progressive creationists (e.g. Hugh Ross calls himself a ‘day-age creationist’ but is widely considered a ‘progressive creationist’). Most believe the universe is as old as secularists claim, but this young man did not. Instead, he thought the universe was maybe hundreds of thousands of years old.

A popular option in (respectability-craving) seminaries is the framework hypothesis, which regards the days of Genesis 1 as real days, but in a literary framework rather than real history. This theory is less than 100 years old, and the original proposers were open about trying to fit long ages (and evolution) into the Bible.

Lastly, there are the biblical creationists. This is our preferred label for CMI’s stated beliefs. [Biblical creationist is also my view, and that of many others. -Cowboy Bob]
To read the entire article, click on "Hybrid approaches to Creation — Is there a middle ground?" ADDENDUM: Two more articles came to my attention that I want to recommend that fit the overall theme. First, "The Gap Theory" by Dr. Jason Lisle. Second, this lengthy article (a PDF download is available) is worth the attention of those who deal with the cult-like following of Rossites, "Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism".



Wednesday, February 20, 2019

A Genesis Axiom to Grind

An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true without evidence, and often used as a starting point in arguments or discussions. We all use them whether we know it or not, and they make up our worldviews. They are important in logic and mathematics. The word is based on the Greek for value or worth, and the area of philosophy called axiology can be traced back to the same word.

An Old Testament scholar wanted to use humanist philosophy to judge the declaration of God that creation is good. He is horribly mistaken.
Garden of Eden image credit: Free Christian Illustrations
Jaco Gericke, an Old Testament scholar, took a notion to do some axiology on Genesis 1. God called everything good, and he seemed to take exception to that. He says it makes no sense to call something good without an axiological frame of reference. Philosophy (and its related categories of logic and ethics) is good to study in principle, but the "great thinkers" and their philosophies are brought to nothing by the Word of God (1 Cor. 1:19-25). Christians should know that there is no one greater than God. When we take an oath, we swear by God, who is the greatest. Who does God swear by? Himself (Heb. 6:13, Jer. 44:26, Deut. 1:8).

I reckon that Gericke is on the prod about God not having a frame of reference based on humanistic philosophy. He needs to read Job 38-41, because God is sovereign and doesn't need to consult with humans. God is good (Psalm 34:8, Mark 10:18). It is his nature, and what he does is good (see "The Goodness of God"). Yes, some things are "good" in different ways. Chocolate tastes good to me, but it's not good for my waistline, and it is lethal to Basement Cat. Other things are good in some ways but not so good (or even bad) in others. God's declaration that his finished work of creation is a different matter.
What God created in the beginning was “very good.” Old Testament scholar professor Jaco Gericke does not believe that: God creating things for the first time and calling them good without an axiological frame of reference is unintelligible. His philosophical reconstruction of the Most High and the axiology of Genesis 1 leads him to claim, among other things, that the “character” in the text was a realist, naturalist, and subjectivist; none of the things that God created had any objective value; nothing was assumed to be perfect; and what was good depended on whether or how much it was desired. The aim of this paper is to show that it is not unintelligible that God created everything good from the beginning; it is only unintelligible to the person who makes the claim.
It's a bit of a long paper, but worth your time. To finish reading, click on "The Most High and the Axiology of Genesis 1: Could God Create Everything Good from the Beginning?"


Labels